4 ms·
What exactly are the point of rules if you can reinterpret them in your favor as you see fit? It would be perfectly reasonable to rewrite rules going forward, b
by haneefmubarak 10y ago
What exactly are the point of rules if you can reinterpret them in your favor as you see fit? It would be perfectly reasonable to rewrite rules going forward, but to retroactively change what the law says invalidates the point of having laws to begin with.
- euyyn 10y agoThe EU rules about what state aids are legal or not have been there for years, though.
- doctorpangloss 10y agoI don't know, what's the point of rules if they're not enforced properly? Or if they're written by people you don't like? Or any number of problems? I'm assailing this line of thinking in general. Instead, can we discuss whether or not giant corporations avoiding taxes is ethical, rather than whether or not there's something up with the rules? Do you seriously believe that what Apple and other large corporations do with respect to taxes is ethical?
- twblalock 10y agoWhat ethical standard is there that can determine how much tax a person or corporation should pay, apart from tax law? It's not like there are pre-existing moral rules in the case of taxes -- taxes exist only because of tax law; tax law defines what taxes are, who is to pay them, and how much they ought to pay. Tax law is the only authoritative standard to which someone's behavior re: taxes can be submitted.
- euyyn 10y agoThe spirit of said tax law.
- twblalock 10y agoIt's not possible to determine the spirit of the tax law an objective way: the tax law is actually an accretion of a bunch of laws and amendments, passed decades apart by different people with different intentions, who were influenced by the politics of their time, lobbyists, the state of the economy, the upcoming presidential election, etc. For example, some parts of tax law were passed by politicians who wanted to help corporations avoid paying taxes, and other parts were passed by politicians who wanted corporations to stop avoiding taxes. Both of these contradictory intentions are embodied in our current tax law. The spirit of the law is confused at best.
- sgift 10y agoThere is no reinterpretation going on here. Apple never asked the EU. Apple went to Ireland "hey, guys, do you think it is okay to do this?" .. Ireland said yes, but Ireland has no authority here. The EU, which has authority, checked it and said "nope, your interpretation is wrong." - Simple as that. If I ask someone on the street if its okay to steal from the rich, he says "yes" and I steal from the rich, no one would bat an eye if the courts didn't agree with my "interpretation" of the law and put me behind bars. And no one would accept it as a legal defense if I said "but hey, that guy over there said it is okay to do this!" - why should it be different for companies?
- johnnyhillbilly 10y agoIreland does have the authority, but: 1. They have applied their own laws in a way that amounts to subsidies, and 2. The corporate structure turned out to be fictional, and allocations of profits were therefore also fictional. ("Arm's length" and all that.) They even open the door for national tax authorities to use their findings and evaluate for profit shifting. This is an inspirational moment - too long have tax treaties favoured those willing to break the spirit of the law and weigh down the little man with the consequences!